High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial.

RATIONALE: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg). RESULTS: Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference -8.2% (95% CI -18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI -1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference -3.3% (95% CI -9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8-17) vs 11 (IQR 7-20) days, absolute risk difference -1.0% (95% CI -3.1% to +1.1%)). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04655638.

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis following COVID-19 Vaccination: Analysis of 552 Worldwide Cases.

To date, billions of vaccine doses have been administered to restrain the current COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. Rare side effects, including intravascular blood clots, were reported in the general population after vaccination. Among these, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) has been considered the most serious one. To shed further light on such an event, we conducted a literature search for case descriptions of CVST in vaccinated people. Findings were analyzed with emphasis on demographic characteristics, type of vaccine, site of thrombosis, clinical and histopathological findings. From 258 potential articles published till September 2021, 41 studies were retrieved for a total of 552 patients. Of these, 492 patients (89.1%) had received AZD1222/Vaxzevria, 45 (8.2%) BNT162b2/CX-024414 Spikevax, 15 (2.7%) JNJ-78436735, and 2 (0.3%) Covishield vaccine. CVST occurred in 382 women and 170 men (mean aged 44 years), and the median timing from the shot was 9 days (range 2-45). Thrombi were predominantly seen in transverse (84%), sigmoid (66%), and/or superior sagittal (56%) sinuses. Brain injury (chiefly intracranial bleeding) occurred in 32% of cases. Of 426 patients with detailed clinical course, 63% were discharged in good clinical conditions, at times with variable neurological sequelae, whereas 37% deceased, largely due to brain injury. This narrative review confirmed CVST as a rare event after (adenoviral vector) COVID-19 vaccination, with a women/men rate ratio of 2.25. Though the pathogenesis of thrombosis is still under discussion, currently available histopathological findings likely indicate an underlying immune vasculitis.

Emotional status and fear in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cross-sectional survey (COVID-SURGERY).

BACKGROUND: Fragmented data exist on the emotional and psychological distress generated by hospital admission during the pandemic in specific populations of patients, and no data exists on patients scheduled for surgery. The aim of this multicentre nationwide prospective cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the impact of pandemic on emotional status and fear of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in a cohort of elective surgical patients in Italy, scheduled for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Twenty-nine Italian centres were involved in the study, for a total of 2376 patients surveyed (mean age of 58 years ± 16.61; 49.6% males). The survey consisted of 28 total closed questions, including four study outcome questions. More than half of patients had at least one chronic disease (54%), among which cardiovascular diseases were the commonest (58%). The most frequent type of surgery was abdominal (20%), under general anaesthesia (64%). Almost half of the patients (46%) declared to be frightened of going to the hospital for routine checkups; 55% to be afraid of getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and 62% were feared of being hospitalised without seeing family members. Having an oncological disease and other patient-related, centre-related or perioperative factors were independently associated with an increased risk of fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and of being hospitalised without seeing family members. A previous infection due to SARS-COV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of worse emotional outcomes and fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Patients who showed the most emotionally vulnerable profile (e.g. use of sleep-inducing drugs, higher fear of surgery or anaesthesia) were at higher risk of worse emotional status towards the hospitalization during COVID-19 pandemic. Being operated in hospitals with lower surgical volume and with COVID-19 wards was associated with worse emotional status and fear of contagion. CONCLUSIONS: Additional fear and worse emotional status may be frequent in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of the participants to the survey were worried about not being able to receive family visits. Psychological support may be considered for patients at higher risk of psychological distress to improve perioperative wellbeing during the pandemic.

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: clues for an immunopathogenesis common to CVST observed in COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 has been responsible for an unprecedented pandemic, and nowadays, several vaccines proved to be effective and safe, representing the only available strategy to stop the pandemic. While millions of people have safely received vaccine, rare and unusual thrombotic events have been reported and are undergoing investigations to elucidate their nature. Understanding initial trigger, underlying pathophysiology and the reasons for specific site localization of thrombotic events are a matter of debate.We here propose that rare cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, a clinical event that may rapidly evolve to brain death, reported after COVID-19 vaccine, might be consequent to an immune response resulting in inflamed/damaged endothelium, an event similar to that described for cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported during COVID-19 and not necessarily related to anti-Platelets Factor 4 antibodies, as recently described. Remarkably, in the two patients presenting at our hospital with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and evolved to brain death, proper tissue perfusion and function maintenance allowed organ donation despite extensive thrombosis in the organ donors, with favorable outcome at 6 months.Increased vigilance, close multidisciplinary collaboration, and further prospective research will help to better elucidate a very rare and still not fully understood pathophysiological event associated with vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Performance of EasyBreath Decathlon Snorkeling mask for delivering continuous positive airway pressure.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for noninvasive respiratory support devices has dramatically increased, sometimes exceeding hospital capacity. The full-face Decathlon snorkeling mask, EasyBreath (EB mask), has been adapted to deliver continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as an emergency respiratory interface. We aimed to assess the performance of this modified EB mask and to test its use during different gas mixture supplies. CPAP set at 5, 10, and 15 cmH2O was delivered to 10 healthy volunteers with a high-flow system generator set at 40, 80, and 120 L min-1 and with a turbine-driven ventilator during both spontaneous and loaded (resistor) breathing. Inspiratory CO2 partial pressure (PiCO2), pressure inside the mask, breathing pattern and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) were measured at all combinations of CPAP/flows delivered, with and without the resistor. Using the high-flow generator set at 40 L min-1, the PiCO2 significantly increased and the system was unable to maintain the target CPAP of 10 and 15 cmH2O and a stable pressure within the respiratory cycle; conversely, the turbine-driven ventilator did. EAdi significantly increased with flow rates of 40 and 80 L min-1 but not at 120 L min-1 and with the turbine-driven ventilator. EB mask can be safely used to deliver CPAP only under strict constraints, using either a high-flow generator at a flow rate greater than 80 L min-1, or a high-performance turbine-driven ventilator.

Noninvasive respiratory support in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other viral infections.

INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) such as noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) have been used in the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) related to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and other viral infections. However, there is a lack of consensus in favor of or against NRS use due to the risks of worsening hypoxemia, intubation delay, and aerosols environmental contamination associated with the use of these tools. We aimed to summarize the evidence on the use of NRS in adult patients with COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia (i.e. H1N1, SARS, MERS) and AHRF. We also searched for studies evaluating the risk of aerosolization/contamination with these tools. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE and two major preprint servers (biorXiv and medRxiv) from inception to April 14, 2020, for studies on the use of respiratory support in AHRF and viral pneumonia. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search identified 4086 records and we found only one randomized controlled trial out of 58 studies included, with great variabilities in support utilization and failure rates. Fifteen studies explored the issue of aerosolization/contamination showing a high risk of airborne transmission via droplets generation during the use of these modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Use of NRS and treatment failure in the context of COVID-19 and viral infection associated-AHRF, varied widely. Dispersion of exhaled air is different depending on the type of respiratory therapies and interfaces. Data from randomized controlled trials are lacking.